Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
You have a fine store of pertinent cartoons. I had a look and found this one: http://zenpencils.com/
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... You have a fine store of pertinent cartoons... Thanks, I try to amuse. :-) To be honest, although I do have a file in which I store fun quotes and URLs for possible future use, most of the time when I want to add a little spice to a post here I just go to Google Images and search for the subject being discussed, adding the keyword funny to the search string. It is rare that I *don't* find something appropriate. For example, when searching for proof of god + funny just now I found these gems:
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Funniest cartoon I've seen in a while. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:01 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into some sort of logical cul de sac of him being unfathomable. God has always been anthropomorphism, mankind's vanity and paranoia writ large. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can conceive of Him not existing.: So the Him you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions. The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: The more they curse God the more they praise Him! Re Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.: The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we humans have a moral sense (The soul is naturally Christian - Tertullian, third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I knew there was a trick to it. I remember reading a list of things to do when using google to add or subtract particular things, forgot it all though. ...much fun later: Careful when commissioning those yagyas! http://www.thebenevolentforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/god-answers-prayers-like-the-weather.jpg
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, I think atheists also anthropomorphize God! For example, when they say that if there was a God, he or she would be the human idea of benign and there wouldn't be such horrible events in the world. That's making a big assumption about the nature of God. On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:01 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into some sort of logical cul de sac of him being unfathomable. God has always been anthropomorphism, mankind's vanity and paranoia writ large. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can conceive of Him not existing.: So the Him you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions. The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: The more they curse God the more they praise Him! Re Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.: The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we humans have a moral sense (The soul is naturally Christian - Tertullian, third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Not really an assumption Share, it's all over the bible and koran about what a great dude he is and how he made us in his image and punishes us for being bad and rewards us for being good. It's enough of a motif for me to think there is a concrete idea among devotees about what he was like and what he wanted us to be like. Are you going to do a Judy and tell me that wasn't the god you were referring to ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I think atheists also anthropomorphize God! For example, when they say that if there was a God, he or she would be the human idea of benign and there wouldn't be such horrible events in the world. That's making a big assumption about the nature of God. On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:01 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into some sort of logical cul de sac of him being unfathomable. God has always been anthropomorphism, mankind's vanity and paranoia writ large. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can conceive of Him not existing.: So the Him you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions. The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: The more they curse God the more they praise Him! Re Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.: The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we humans have a moral sense (The soul is naturally Christian - Tertullian, third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Nope, Salyavin, I'm gonna do a Share and try to explain my logic (-: Ok, then the atheists seem to do a double anthro! They don't anthropomorphize God directly. They take what others have written and interpret that in human terms. Really both atheists and theists are stuck with being human and interpreting God or Being or Source or Whatever from that perspective. Wonder what the squirrels and rocks think! On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:53 PM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Not really an assumption Share, it's all over the bible and koran about what a great dude he is and how he made us in his image and punishes us for being bad and rewards us for being good. It's enough of a motif for me to think there is a concrete idea among devotees about what he was like and what he wanted us to be like. Are you going to do a Judy and tell me that wasn't the god you were referring to ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I think atheists also anthropomorphize God! For example, when they say that if there was a God, he or she would be the human idea of benign and there wouldn't be such horrible events in the world. That's making a big assumption about the nature of God. On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:01 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into some sort of logical cul de sac of him being unfathomable. God has always been anthropomorphism, mankind's vanity and paranoia writ large. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can conceive of Him not existing.: So the Him you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions. The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: The more they curse God the more they praise Him! Re Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.: The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we humans have a moral sense (The soul is naturally Christian - Tertullian, third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I would say you have to be able to think to invent the concept of god. Everything else just gets on with it.. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Nope, Salyavin, I'm gonna do a Share and try to explain my logic (-: Ok, then the atheists seem to do a double anthro! They don't anthropomorphize God directly. They take what others have written and interpret that in human terms. Really both atheists and theists are stuck with being human and interpreting God or Being or Source or Whatever from that perspective. Wonder what the squirrels and rocks think! On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:53 PM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Not really an assumption Share, it's all over the bible and koran about what a great dude he is and how he made us in his image and punishes us for being bad and rewards us for being good. It's enough of a motif for me to think there is a concrete idea among devotees about what he was like and what he wanted us to be like. Are you going to do a Judy and tell me that wasn't the god you were referring to ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I think atheists also anthropomorphize God! For example, when they say that if there was a God, he or she would be the human idea of benign and there wouldn't be such horrible events in the world. That's making a big assumption about the nature of God. On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:01 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into some sort of logical cul de sac of him being unfathomable. God has always been anthropomorphism, mankind's vanity and paranoia writ large. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can conceive of Him not existing.: So the Him you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions. The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: The more they curse God the more they praise Him! Re Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.: The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we humans have a moral sense (The soul is naturally Christian - Tertullian, third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure. As for life after death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do with God or the belief or non-belief in one. I don't believe in a God, but I suspect (based on subjective experience of fairly dynamic waking state past-life flashbacks) that consciousness may continue after physical death. But that has nothing whatsoever IMO to do with either the existence of a God or the existence of any kind of morality or fairness as you imply with your notions about karma. I think that fairness is a human-invented concept that does not exist in nature, and never has. It's a myth that people think up so that they won't be so frightened of the idea of chaos and indeterminancy. That's why they invent the myth of God too IMO, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Anyway, as for the Great Mystery that we call death, I pass along an interesting song that will probably not mean anything to anyone here who isn't a fan of the Canadian TV show Lost Girl. This song (in its entirety) was used to close the last show of the season, in which one of everyone's favorite characters gets to explore the Great Mystery, and IMO it was brilliantly chosen, because all over Canada and North America fans were weeping to see her go. But as to WHERE she's going, that's still a Great Mystery, as much in fiction as in real life. No problemo...we'll all find out soon enough ourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what you believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when anyone dies? Is it the atheist position that it's lights out. Options - expire worthless Now, I know one might say, I have no evidence that, that's not the case, but I'd like to know what you believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Oopsie-Barry. Nothing wrong with Stevie-boy's questions, but life after death wasn't part of the discussion, as Barry would have known had he read the posts. Barry's panties are really in a wad this morning. Yesterday he got slapped down because he mistakenly assumed I was trying to sell my beliefs (not having read my posts). So this morning he's trying to attack me for not trying to sell my beliefs. Too funny. In any case, anyone who has been reading my posts on a regular basis knows I'm not a believer. That really confuses Barry, because he has neither the intellect nor the principles to understand why someone would object to ignorant bigotry if one doesn't have a dog in the fight. Nor does he have the smarts to even grasp what the argument he's so contemptuous of has been about. Carry on, Barry. I'm sure you can manage to fuck up another few times today. Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may continue after physical death you open the door to the possibility that there is an agency at work behind the scenes organizing this activity. And then there's there are the many anomalies such as twins separated at birth, who develop similar skills, or the hundreds of examples of people recalling things that they have no business recalling. And when you bring up these examples to atheists, you sometimes hear them play a very Godlike card such as, There's so much we don't know about genetics, or There's so much we don't know about the brain. Sounds very much like, God works in mysteries ways. For the record, I am pretty clueless about God, but I do believe in a higher power at work here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure. As for life after death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do with God or the belief or non-belief in one. I don't believe in a God, but I suspect (based on subjective experience of fairly dynamic waking state past-life flashbacks) that consciousness may continue after physical death. But that has nothing whatsoever IMO to do with either the existence of a God or the existence of any kind of morality or fairness as you imply with your notions about karma. I think that fairness is a human-invented concept that does not exist in nature, and never has. It's a myth that people think up so that they won't be so frightened of the idea of chaos and indeterminancy. That's why they invent the myth of God too IMO, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Anyway, as for the Great Mystery that we call death, I pass along an interesting song that will probably not mean anything to anyone here who isn't a fan of the Canadian TV show Lost Girl. This song (in its entirety) was used to close the last show of the season, in which one of everyone's favorite characters gets to explore the Great Mystery, and IMO it was brilliantly chosen, because all over Canada and North America fans were weeping to see her go. But as to WHERE she's going, that's still a Great Mystery, as much in fiction as in real life. No problemo...we'll all find out soon enough ourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what you believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when anyone dies? Is it the atheist position that it's lights out. Options - expire worthless Now, I know one might say, I have no evidence that, that's not the case, but I'd like to know what you believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Poor Xeno. If he's read my post to Salyavin of yesterday afternoon quoting philospher and classical theist Edward Feser, he now knows he wasted a lot of his own time and ended up only making a fool of himself. He's just way, WAY out of his depth, in terms both of information and understanding. If he wants further confirmation and humiliation, he can read Feser's detailed post on classical theism or any others of the posts on the page of links about classical theism from Feser's blog I also linked to. (BTW, note that he doesn't cite any of the Web pages he claims to have consulted.) As I gathered my information from web pages entitled 'Classical Theism' the version or variation you imply here needs to be stated explicitly to show how what I wrote is not classical theism. You need to produce what you think classical theism is, if you want to correct what I said, otherwise you are saying nothing whatever to contradict what I said. So I say, your interpretation of classical theism is wrong. Provide the counter arguments. (you can reply to Salyavin if you like, to avoid certain repercussions). This might have to do with the use of English articles 'a', 'an', 'the'. In the Greek Christian Bible, for example god is usually written TON THEOS (THE GOD - first century Greek only had capital letters). If there is such a thing as absolute being, how many of it is or are there? If it is a unity, then one could say it's either absolute being, or the absolute being, since it is unique; if it were not unique, then it certainly would not be associated with the word god as you seem to imply but do not as yet say. I would venture to say that because nobody seems to ever exactly agree on just what god is, that 'classical theism' is really just a general category for similar but not identical views and that the term classical theism really does not apply to a specifically definable idea. But you seem to have something specific in mind. Produce it or you lose the argument. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: An/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being is not how classical theism characterizes God. If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being having, simplicity is all knowing is all powerful is all good is ultimate reality is transcendent is incorporeal is timeless is infinite is all intelligent This all sounds very grand, but it does not explain how simplicity can create complexity, does not explain why something that is separate from non-ultimate reality (the non-transcendent world) can interact with the non-transcendent world, and does not explain how that which is all knowing cannot explain why it cannot explain this. It does not explain how an all powerful being can produce a world with such weakness and defects and shoddy workmanship. It does not explain how evil can arise from something that is all good, or how deception and illusion can arise out of all goodness and what is ultimately real. It does not explain how incorporeality can make itself even known in the world, because in the world, all that can be imagined, invisible dragons, invisible cockroaches, other invisible gods etc., all appear the same (as in the cartoon Barry posted). It does not explain how the time bound human mind can conceive of timelessness, or infinity, or with our limited intelligence (having been somehow generated by something all intelligent) can even imagine something more intelligent than we are. simplicity / complexitynowing / ignorance powerful / weak good / evil reality / illusion transcendent / factual incorporeal / embodied timeless / time bound infinite / finite These opposites logically contradict one another and yet are somehow supposed to fit together, our world and the 'world' denoted by the token 'god', but a contradiction simply means that an argument is false. In other words classical theism is attempting to ignore half of reality by shunting it away under the rug and tacking the rest on a concept called 'god' which is walled off from the corruption of those superlatives. On the face of it, those superlatives look impressive. If you are a priest, a purveyor of a faith, it is really a great thing to be able to ride on the coattails of such a conception, because it makes you look good, because you have the appearance of being associated with something above and beyond the miserable herd you can look down upon. That is appearance only. Absolute being has nothing to do with metaphysics. Belief in something does not materialise that something, it is simply an idea that one thinks is true in the absence of whatever it is that one thinks is true. Metaphysics is an imaginary playground of the mind, an illusion, a make believe story, that exists as thought only. Absolute being has to do with concrete reality and experience, it is the very world you
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I mean, I guess it could boil down to one question. If there is consciousness after physical death, why? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure. As for life after death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do with God or the belief or non-belief in one. I don't believe in a God, but I suspect (based on subjective experience of fairly dynamic waking state past-life flashbacks) that consciousness may continue after physical death. But that has nothing whatsoever IMO to do with either the existence of a God or the existence of any kind of morality or fairness as you imply with your notions about karma. I think that fairness is a human-invented concept that does not exist in nature, and never has. It's a myth that people think up so that they won't be so frightened of the idea of chaos and indeterminancy. That's why they invent the myth of God too IMO, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Anyway, as for the Great Mystery that we call death, I pass along an interesting song that will probably not mean anything to anyone here who isn't a fan of the Canadian TV show Lost Girl. This song (in its entirety) was used to close the last show of the season, in which one of everyone's favorite characters gets to explore the Great Mystery, and IMO it was brilliantly chosen, because all over Canada and North America fans were weeping to see her go. But as to WHERE she's going, that's still a Great Mystery, as much in fiction as in real life. No problemo...we'll all find out soon enough ourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what you believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when anyone dies? Is it the atheist position that it's lights out. Options - expire worthless Now, I know one might say, I have no evidence that, that's not the case, but I'd like to know what you believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
From: steve.sun...@yahoo.com steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... I mean, I guess it could boil down to one question. If there is consciousness after physical death, why? Why not? I differ with Curtis and others God-skeptics here in that I don't necessarily see a one-to-one mapping between brain chemistry and consciousness. I've had too many OOTB experiences and remembrances of time spent in the Bardo between death and life to not place some credence in them. True, they could all be illusions, mere brain farts that I am interpreting as memories, but they are just as strong and just as real as any other memories I've ever formed, so I give them the same weight. I've also studied enough Tibetan Buddhism to be comfortable with its descriptions of life after death, and had them resonate so deeply with my own memories that I pay that belief system heed. Do I think about this stuff much? No way. It's just a baseline set of assumptions that I assume...for now. I certainly don't debate them or try to convince others to assume the same things. As I've said many times before, I don't see the percentage in dwelling on the subject too much. I've got my own version of Pascal's Wager, and it keeps me feeling fine and dandy, and focusing on life, not death. Pascal's Wager? Classic God/No God argument. I never liked it because it always struck me as entirely fear-based, but here goes. As I remember it, ole' Blaise came up with his strongest argument for believing in God, and phrased it in terms of a bet, a wager. You either bet that God exists, or you bet that he doesn't. This leads to four possible outcomes. If you bet that God doesn't exist and he doesn't...no harm, no foul. If you bet that he does exist and he doesn't...again no harm, no foul. If you bet that God does exist and he does, you win. If you bet that God doesn't exist and he doesbt...you lose. Especially if you believe in sin and punishment and a vengeful God and all that. Pascal figured that the safest bet was to wager that God exists. My wager is more like this, because I don't believe in any of that sin and vengeful God crap. If I believe in life after death and there is some, then I will be pleased by that and I win. If I believe that there is life after death and there is none, and everything just goes black, there will be no I present to even be disappointed, so again I win. So I'll stick with my win-win baseline set of assumptions for now. :-) From: steve.sun...@yahoo.com steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... I mean, I guess it could boil down to one question. If there is consciousness after physical death, why? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure. As for life after death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do with God or the belief or non-belief in one. I don't believe in a God, but I suspect (based on subjective experience of fairly dynamic waking state past-life flashbacks) that consciousness may continue after physical death. But that has nothing whatsoever IMO to do with either the existence of a God or the existence of any kind of morality or fairness as you imply with your notions about karma. I think that fairness is a human-invented concept that does not exist in nature, and never has. It's a myth that people think up so that they won't be so frightened of the idea of chaos and indeterminancy. That's why they invent the myth of God too IMO, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Anyway, as for the Great Mystery that we call death, I pass along an interesting song that will probably not mean anything to anyone here who isn't a fan of the Canadian TV show Lost Girl. This song (in its entirety) was used to close the last show of the season, in which one of everyone's favorite characters gets to explore the Great Mystery, and IMO it was brilliantly chosen, because all over Canada and North America fans were weeping to see her go. But as to WHERE she's going, that's still a Great Mystery, as much in fiction as in real life. No problemo...we'll all find out soon enough ourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what you believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when anyone dies? Is it the atheist position that it's lights out. Options - expire worthless Now, I know one might say, I have no evidence
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may continue after physical death you open the door to the possibility that there is an agency at work behind the scenes organizing this activity. And then there's there are the many anomalies such as twins separated at birth, who develop similar skills, or the hundreds of examples of people recalling things that they have no business recalling. And when you bring up these examples to atheists, you sometimes hear them play a very Godlike card such as, There's so much we don't know about genetics, or There's so much we don't know about the brain. Sounds very much like, God works in mysteries ways. For the record, I am pretty clueless about God, but I do believe in a higher power at work here. I do too. And I find it so strange when people say I want proof because it is everywhere. There is nothing but proof from the oatmeal you cook for breakfast to the airplane that flies. It is just so strange that everyone doesn't see that. It is like being in a garden and the person next to you asks where the flowers are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure. As for life after death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do with God or the belief or non-belief in one. I don't believe in a God, but I suspect (based on subjective experience of fairly dynamic waking state past-life flashbacks) that consciousness may continue after physical death. But that has nothing whatsoever IMO to do with either the existence of a God or the existence of any kind of morality or fairness as you imply with your notions about karma. I think that fairness is a human-invented concept that does not exist in nature, and never has. It's a myth that people think up so that they won't be so frightened of the idea of chaos and indeterminancy. That's why they invent the myth of God too IMO, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Anyway, as for the Great Mystery that we call death, I pass along an interesting song that will probably not mean anything to anyone here who isn't a fan of the Canadian TV show Lost Girl. This song (in its entirety) was used to close the last show of the season, in which one of everyone's favorite characters gets to explore the Great Mystery, and IMO it was brilliantly chosen, because all over Canada and North America fans were weeping to see her go. But as to WHERE she's going, that's still a Great Mystery, as much in fiction as in real life. No problemo...we'll all find out soon enough ourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what you believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when anyone dies? Is it the atheist position that it's lights out. Options - expire worthless Now, I know one might say, I have no evidence that, that's not the case, but I'd like to know what you believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
On 2/18/2014 8:45 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: If I believe that there is life after death and there is none, and everything just goes black, there will be no I present to even be disappointed, so again I win. So, who does the winning?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Yes, yes, yes! Thanks Ann and Steve. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may continue after physical death you open the door to the possibility that there is an agency at work behind the scenes organizing this activity. And then there's there are the many anomalies such as twins separated at birth, who develop similar skills, or the hundreds of examples of people recalling things that they have no business recalling. And when you bring up these examples to atheists, you sometimes hear them play a very Godlike card such as, There's so much we don't know about genetics, or There's so much we don't know about the brain. Sounds very much like, God works in mysteries ways. For the record, I am pretty clueless about God, but I do believe in a higher power at work here. I do too. And I find it so strange when people say I want proof because it is everywhere. There is nothing but proof from the oatmeal you cook for breakfast to the airplane that flies. It is just so strange that everyone doesn't see that. It is like being in a garden and the person next to you asks where the flowers are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure. As for life after death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do with God or the belief or non-belief in one. I don't believe in a God, but I suspect (based on subjective experience of fairly dynamic waking state past-life flashbacks) that consciousness may continue after physical death. But that has nothing whatsoever IMO to do with either the existence of a God or the existence of any kind of morality or fairness as you imply with your notions about karma. I think that fairness is a human-invented concept that does not exist in nature, and never has. It's a myth that people think up so that they won't be so frightened of the idea of chaos and indeterminancy. That's why they invent the myth of God too IMO, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Anyway, as for the Great Mystery that we call death, I pass along an interesting song that will probably not mean anything to anyone here who isn't a fan of the Canadian TV show Lost Girl. This song (in its entirety) was used to close the last show of the season, in which one of everyone's favorite characters gets to explore the Great Mystery, and IMO it was brilliantly chosen, because all over Canada and North America fans were weeping to see her go. But as to WHERE she's going, that's still a Great Mystery, as much in fiction as in real life. No problemo...we'll all find out soon enough ourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what you believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when anyone dies? Is it the atheist position that it's lights out. Options - expire worthless Now, I know one might say, I have no evidence that, that's not the case, but I'd like to know what you believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may continue after physical death you open the door to the possibility that there is an agency at work behind the scenes organizing this activity. And then there's there are the many anomalies such as twins separated at birth, who develop similar skills, or the hundreds of examples of people recalling things that they have no business recalling. And when you bring up these examples to atheists, you sometimes hear them play a very Godlike card such as, There's so much we don't know about genetics, or There's so much we don't know about the brain. Sounds very much like, God works in mysteries ways. For the record, I am pretty clueless about God, but I do believe in a higher power at work here. I do too. And I find it so strange when people say I want proof because it is everywhere. There is nothing but proof from the oatmeal you cook for breakfast to the airplane that flies. It is just so strange that everyone doesn't see that. It is like being in a garden and the person next to you asks where the flowers are. Ah, now I see where you are coming from
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, I actually find these questions quite profound, worth mulling over, etc. I also like your question about what is my karma bouncing off of but won't address that here and now. Anyway, when I think about my belief in a supreme existence, I realize what it does for me is create a possibility of a unity underlying all the separate existences I know via my senses. That FEELS right to me even though I can't prove it. On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:45 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: So basically what you are saying is that the early gods that man invented turned out to be too easily disposed of intellectually, so everyone is going out of their minds to make him as oblique and impenetrable as possible yet still keep him existing in some way. I'm a lot more interested in why the god meme stays relevant. What does it do for you? Or perhaps, what does the universe lack without whatever powers you are giving this supreme being?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I actually find these questions quite profound, worth mulling over, etc. I also like your question about what is my karma bouncing off of but won't address that here and now. A good mull does one good I think. Anyway, when I think about my belief in a supreme existence, I realize what it does for me is create a possibility of a unity underlying all the separate existences I know via my senses. That FEELS right to me even though I can't prove it. Sounds like enlightenment is coming to FFL! On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:45 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: So basically what you are saying is that the early gods that man invented turned out to be too easily disposed of intellectually, so everyone is going out of their minds to make him as oblique and impenetrable as possible yet still keep him existing in some way. I'm a lot more interested in why the god meme stays relevant. What does it do for you? Or perhaps, what does the universe lack without whatever powers you are giving this supreme being?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Sounds like enlightenment is coming to FFL! Duck! On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:54 PM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I actually find these questions quite profound, worth mulling over, etc. I also like your question about what is my karma bouncing off of but won't address that here and now. A good mull does one good I think. Anyway, when I think about my belief in a supreme existence, I realize what it does for me is create a possibility of a unity underlying all the separate existences I know via my senses. That FEELS right to me even though I can't prove it. Sounds like enlightenment is coming to FFL! On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:45 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: So basically what you are saying is that the early gods that man invented turned out to be too easily disposed of intellectually, so everyone is going out of their minds to make him as oblique and impenetrable as possible yet still keep him existing in some way. I'm a lot more interested in why the god meme stays relevant. What does it do for you? Or perhaps, what does the universe lack without whatever powers you are giving this supreme being?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I arrived back late last night and read no posts except that one I responded to. I derived my material principally from the Wikipedia article, but what I asked you was what *you* thought classical theism was that resulted in your rejection what I presumed it was, not what someone else thought it was. So you still have not supplied a response. All I am asking is what you think is wrong with the phrase which you specified negatively below, what is the correction you would supply?: An/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being is not how classical theism characterizes God. ---Judy Stein
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Xeno's questions are once again disingenuous. I think classical theism is what Feser says in his posts. That's, you know, why I posted them here, along with additional links. Nor have I ever seen any other classical theist describe it differently. In any case, of course it isn't a matter of what I think classical theism is. It's very well established what it is. Xeno's question about why his statement is wrong is also disingenuous if he's been reading my posts, and if he read Feser's post. Xeno might also want to check with his mentor Barry concerning Wikipedia's reliability. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: I arrived back late last night and read no posts except that one I responded to. I derived my material principally from the Wikipedia article, but what I asked you was what *you* thought classical theism was that resulted in your rejection what I presumed it was, not what someone else thought it was. So you still have not supplied a response. All I am asking is what you think is wrong with the phrase which you specified negatively below, what is the correction you would supply?: An/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being is not how classical theism characterizes God. ---Judy Stein
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
The neo search function does not work very well, I could not find the material you mentioned. Can you give me the post number? There was no post I could find that credited Fesler directly in the past few days. Name the post number that has Fesler quotes that describe classical theism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
On 2/18/2014 4:00 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: It's very well established what it is. It may be very well established but let's review what we know about theism: Monotheism, the belief in the existence of one transcendent God, is the classical use of the word theism in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one god, for example in Hindu, Egyptian, and Greek religions. First came polytheism, then can monotheism, and then came deism - the belief in reason and observation to determine the existence of God the Creator.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
On 2/18/2014 4:00 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Xeno might also want to check with his mentor Barry concerning Wikipedia's reliability. We should probably also check the dictionary. the·ism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world . http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Feser's last name doesn't appear in the post except in the links, which use his full name edwardfeser (not Fesler). The neo search function does not work very well, I could not find the material you mentioned. Can you give me the post number? There was no post I could find that credited Fesler directly in the past few days. Name the post number that has Fesler quotes that describe classical theism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Sure, thanks for elaborating. Although I don't have any recall experiences of a previous existence, I think we all have spent some time trying to come to some understanding of what it all means Now, in my cosmology, I can't make sense of things without introducing the tenants of karma and reincarnation. Having said that, it's not anything I think about regularly, at least anymore. Now, sal is on record here that he is baffled by karma - how it might work etc. Well, hell yea, I'm baffled too. But here is a bottom line for me. Once you open yourself that we are not born as blank slate. Once you you open yourself to the notion of consciousness existing after physical death, then you might have to adjust your beliefs as to their being some sort of higher power who has a hand in things. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: From: steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... I mean, I guess it could boil down to one question. If there is consciousness after physical death, why? Why not? I differ with Curtis and others God-skeptics here in that I don't necessarily see a one-to-one mapping between brain chemistry and consciousness. I've had too many OOTB experiences and remembrances of time spent in the Bardo between death and life to not place some credence in them. True, they could all be illusions, mere brain farts that I am interpreting as memories, but they are just as strong and just as real as any other memories I've ever formed, so I give them the same weight. I've also studied enough Tibetan Buddhism to be comfortable with its descriptions of life after death, and had them resonate so deeply with my own memories that I pay that belief system heed. Do I think about this stuff much? No way. It's just a baseline set of assumptions that I assume...for now. I certainly don't debate them or try to convince others to assume the same things. As I've said many times before, I don't see the percentage in dwelling on the subject too much. I've got my own version of Pascal's Wager, and it keeps me feeling fine and dandy, and focusing on life, not death. Pascal's Wager? Classic God/No God argument. I never liked it because it always struck me as entirely fear-based, but here goes. As I remember it, ole' Blaise came up with his strongest argument for believing in God, and phrased it in terms of a bet, a wager. You either bet that God exists, or you bet that he doesn't. This leads to four possible outcomes. If you bet that God doesn't exist and he doesn't...no harm, no foul. If you bet that he does exist and he doesn't...again no harm, no foul. If you bet that God does exist and he does, you win. If you bet that God doesn't exist and he doesbt...you lose. Especially if you believe in sin and punishment and a vengeful God and all that. Pascal figured that the safest bet was to wager that God exists. My wager is more like this, because I don't believe in any of that sin and vengeful God crap. If I believe in life after death and there is some, then I will be pleased by that and I win. If I believe that there is life after death and there is none, and everything just goes black, there will be no I present to even be disappointed, so again I win. So I'll stick with my win-win baseline set of assumptions for now. :-) From: steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... I mean, I guess it could boil down to one question. If there is consciousness after physical death, why? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure. As for life after death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do with God or the belief or non-belief in one. I don't believe in a God, but I suspect (based on subjective experience of fairly dynamic waking state past-life flashbacks) that consciousness may continue after physical death. But that has nothing whatsoever IMO to do with either the existence of a God or the existence of any kind of morality or fairness as you imply with your notions about karma. I think that fairness is a human-invented concept that does not exist in nature, and never has. It's a myth that people think up so that they won't be so frightened of the idea of chaos and indeterminancy. That's why they invent the myth of God too IMO, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Anyway, as for the Great Mystery that we call death, I pass along an interesting song that will probably not mean anything
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
well, it is an interesting point you make Ann. I do think that the atheists, in general like keeping the discussion on a more abstract, highly philosophical track. I mean, if I understand it correctly, an atheist would have to believe that we are born as a blank slate. And that when we die, it is fade to black That has so many implications that fly in the face of everyday experience, me thinks. Twins separated at birth, growing up in different environments. How could they in any way develop similarities as they are know to do. Or all the strange accounts of children recalling past lives and verifiable events. I mean, these things happen all the time, and I don't think the atheist has any sensible explanation for them, except, there is so much we don't know about brain functioning or genetics Anyway, that's my rant. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Well, I think once you open the door to the possibility that consciousness may continue after physical death you open the door to the possibility that there is an agency at work behind the scenes organizing this activity. And then there's there are the many anomalies such as twins separated at birth, who develop similar skills, or the hundreds of examples of people recalling things that they have no business recalling. And when you bring up these examples to atheists, you sometimes hear them play a very Godlike card such as, There's so much we don't know about genetics, or There's so much we don't know about the brain. Sounds very much like, God works in mysteries ways. For the record, I am pretty clueless about God, but I do believe in a higher power at work here. I do too. And I find it so strange when people say I want proof because it is everywhere. There is nothing but proof from the oatmeal you cook for breakfast to the airplane that flies. It is just so strange that everyone doesn't see that. It is like being in a garden and the person next to you asks where the flowers are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Good questions, especially in an argument started by and perpetuated by someone who doesn't even have the balls to say what she believes. She's arguing *literally* just for the sake of arguing. Go figure. As for life after death, you didn't ask me but I don't see that this has anything to do with God or the belief or non-belief in one. I don't believe in a God, but I suspect (based on subjective experience of fairly dynamic waking state past-life flashbacks) that consciousness may continue after physical death. But that has nothing whatsoever IMO to do with either the existence of a God or the existence of any kind of morality or fairness as you imply with your notions about karma. I think that fairness is a human-invented concept that does not exist in nature, and never has. It's a myth that people think up so that they won't be so frightened of the idea of chaos and indeterminancy. That's why they invent the myth of God too IMO, but one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Anyway, as for the Great Mystery that we call death, I pass along an interesting song that will probably not mean anything to anyone here who isn't a fan of the Canadian TV show Lost Girl. This song (in its entirety) was used to close the last show of the season, in which one of everyone's favorite characters gets to explore the Great Mystery, and IMO it was brilliantly chosen, because all over Canada and North America fans were weeping to see her go. But as to WHERE she's going, that's still a Great Mystery, as much in fiction as in real life. No problemo...we'll all find out soon enough ourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fCcggNkTs ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Does it advance the discussion in anyway to ask what you believe, say in regards to what happens when you die, or when anyone dies? Is it the atheist position that it's lights out. Options - expire worthless Now, I know one might say, I have no evidence that, that's not the case, but I'd like to know what you believe. My analysis compels me to believe that there is an element of karma, and that karma carries over from one existence to the next, and the next. To use a oft cited example, the person who is a mass murderer, just merges back into nothingness upon death? No consequences? So people get away with murder? Or no kudos for a generous life? No second chance for a life cut down after one or two years? Step away from the theory for a moment and tell us, if you care to, what you believe in this regard.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
On 2/18/2014 6:41 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Feser's last name doesn't appear in the post except in the links, which use his full name edwardfeser (not Fesler). Just cut out all the double-speak - everyone knows that I'm the professor and the fester lives up in IA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:01 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... I love the people have shifted the idea of what god is when earlier interpretations turn out to be too easily disposed of. I can see why theology never satisfactorily answered any questions! But I am impressed with the energy people put in to weaving their way past the need for evidence into some sort of logical cul de sac of him being unfathomable. God has always been anthropomorphism, mankind's vanity and paranoia writ large. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Re So the argument must be falling down somewhere, probably because I can conceive of Him not existing.: So the Him you can conceive as not existing is clearly NOT the Him whose non-existence is inconceivable! The God you conceive might not exist is an image that you've constructed in your imagination based on your Sunday School lessons, so is essentially an *idol* - a false god. It is good news that you see that idols can't exist. The more idols you dismiss the closer you come to the real God that lies beyond your or anyone else's conceptions. The 14th-century theologian Meister Eckhart made the same point: The more they curse God the more they praise Him! Re Seems reasonable to me that God would have a strong moral sense, stronger than mine even, and that he wouldn't like to see people suffer.: The Godhead doesn't have a strong moral sense. It is the crassest anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise. (It's another category error!) But we humans have a moral sense (The soul is naturally Christian - Tertullian, third century) so we should encourage that moral sense to flourish in the same way that a gardener encourages a flower to bloom and emit its fragrance.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all god is a manifestation of all things to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Oh, I think it's a great argument. Nothing like an apparently cast iron certainty to make the other side sharpen up it's debate. Human ingenuity is boundless. And who knows, one of us might actually be right ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all god is a manifestation of all things to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Yep; Unified Field the God. I agree with Turqb here about the specious argument of the sophists here. Though both Science and atheists will catch up and make them believers as knowers as they all eventually come to the very scientific experience that the Unified Field is preeminent God of all, as the 'green-cheese' of all life and matter with its will to create and manifest infinitely with Love and Compassion for life. This is Large Nature that all of life evidently comes to. Make haste friends before it is too late in this very incarnation to experience the fullness of fullness of the Unified Field. Repent your unscientific non-believer ideological ways and Wake up. Come to meditation. The Dome doors open every morning at 7am for group meditation, -Buck in the Dome turquoiseb writes, This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all god is a manifestation of all things to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if God is simply what people call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain functioning in a very, very healthy way. I find it fascinating that they then speak about God or Brahman or Allah, etc. Is this not worthy of scientific exploration? I say let's hook some of these people up to an fMRI machine and see what's going on. Then let's continue the discussions on that basis. Otherwise, not even the scientists are being very scientific! As for me, I suspect that this is what's going on with such individuals. I think they have a whole lot more of their brain functioning healthily than I do. So I'm willing to pay attention to what they say. Because I'd love to get to that same point, have a brain that's optimally functioning. On Monday, February 17, 2014 1:12 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: comments below ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is another term for the latter (which, according to Laotze, is eternally nameless). In some religious systems perhaps, but not the ones the quote is aimed at. Nothing wrong with not being a believer, but if they're going to argue with theists, these new atheist dudes need to read, at the very least, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss so they have some idea of what they're talking about. He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it. As might have been mentioned, this experience of god is most likely a different state of consciousness and the neural functions and the hormonal, chemical systems that support it. I say most likely because it isn't like the new religious have got anywhere nearer to proving that there is something else, some brahma or whatever you want to call it today. How many ways of saying We want there to be more can there possibly be? All you have here is a new way of saying the same old thing. An involving argument is no substitute for evidence. It's a security blanket. Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Um, Buck, which sophists are you referring to here, the ones making the argument for God-as-Beingness, the source of all existence, the argument Barry and Salyavin are ridiculing? Or do you think you might have misread what Barry was saying? Or perhaps you were being ironic in pretending you agree with Barry...? Yep; Unified Field the God. I agree with Turqb here about the specious argument of the sophists here. Though both Science and atheists will catch up and make them believers as knowers as they all eventually come to the very scientific experience that the Unified Field is preeminent God of all, as the 'green-cheese' of all life and matter with its will to create and manifest infinitely with Love and Compassion for life. This is Large Nature that all of life evidently comes to. Make haste friends before it is too late in this very incarnation to experience the fullness of fullness of the Unified Field. Repent your unscientific non-believer ideological ways and Wake up. Come to meditation. The Dome doors open every morning at 7am for group meditation, -Buck in the Dome turquoiseb writes, This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all god is a manifestation of all things to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I agree that god is what people call a brain in some sort of different, enhanced, state and that must have something to do with our own sense of feeling and powers of explanation. I think it was Aldous Huxley who theorised that people who have god experiences have more mescalin occurring naturally in their brains than the rest of the population. I think the way our brains create a world for us to live in that we think is reality gets changed during meds/trips so different bits are emphasised, we have a part of our brain that handles spacial dimension so if that gets altered it might forget where to put our boundaries and leave us thinking we are in an infinite space. If you ever had a mushroom or LSD trip you'll know that all sorts of profound revelations pop up. The trick is to not take them too seriously. If our consciousness and sense of place in the world and reactions to it are all chemicals and neuronal activity, as I would argue, then the wild feelings of joy and wisdom you get must be coming from alterations or additions to those chemicals. Some people are maybe more prone to god experiences through meditation or fasting etc. A god gene perhaps. I think it would be fascinating to get an enlightened head into an MRI scanner and see how it compares to a tripping head. I know there are differences in the subjective experience but are there enough similarities to categorise them the same way? The main similarity for us is the feeling of holiness or special knowledge you get from both states. In my first mushroom trip I saw loads of Greek gods floating about in the sky like perfect statues. I wasn't so out of it that I wondered why I saw gods. The only thing I could come up with was the Freudian notion that the unconsciousness mind has a rather fantastic opinion of itself so if you put it in charge it will give you these delusions of grandeur. I know someone who works at Imperial college in London which is one of the main teaching hospitals, and I asked him if I could stick my head inside his MRI machine when I was meditating (he writes the software for them) but he couldn't see the scientific value. Or at least not enough to cancel all the researchers who are queueing round the block to do potentially life saving work! Like Buck I say we get scientific about it, the better the machine the better the results. I'm sure we'll get a proper decent map of where consciousness occurs in the brain and how it works. But unlike Buck I think it will all be chemicals and neurons, unless Penrose is right and there is a quantum element. In a field where nothing has been definitively explained you have to keep your options open. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if God is simply what people call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain functioning in a very, very healthy way. I find it fascinating that they then speak about God or Brahman or Allah, etc. Is this not worthy of scientific exploration? I say let's hook some of these people up to an fMRI machine and see what's going on. Then let's continue the discussions on that basis. Otherwise, not even the scientists are being very scientific! As for me, I suspect that this is what's going on with such individuals. I think they have a whole lot more of their brain functioning healthily than I do. So I'm willing to pay attention to what they say. Because I'd love to get to that same point, have a brain that's optimally functioning. On Monday, February 17, 2014 1:12 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: comments below ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges, deities subordinate to the Ultimate Reality, the Ground of Being. The Tao is another term for the latter (which, according to Laotze, is eternally nameless). In some religious systems perhaps, but not the ones the quote is aimed at. Nothing wrong with not being a believer, but if they're going to argue with theists, these new atheist dudes need to read, at the very least, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss so they have some idea of what they're talking about. He really blasts them for their willful, arrogant ignorance, but they deserve it. As might have been mentioned, this experience of god is most likely a different state of consciousness and the neural functions and the hormonal, chemical systems that support it. I say most likely because it isn't like the new religious have got anywhere nearer to proving that there is something else, some brahma
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between X says... and What X says is true. This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Share is on to something. As you said, Sal, it is all chemicals and neuronal activity. Yes, it is. However, it must be stabilized through meditation and activity. Then, unbounded awareness has a *choice*, to operate locally, while established in Being, whether enjoying any flashy experience of the subtle senses, or filled with joy, or doing the dishes. The point being, that the flashy experiences only point to unbounded awareness, 24x7, but it is a mistake to assume enlightenment is an unbroken string of them. It certainly could be, if one so chooses, but it leaves precious little time for the rest of life. Unbounded awareness means having the ability, and evenness, to experience anything, from the Heavens, to the deepest pit of Hell, and continue to live a normal, productive and evolving life. 100% inside, 100 outside. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I agree that god is what people call a brain in some sort of different, enhanced, state and that must have something to do with our own sense of feeling and powers of explanation. I think it was Aldous Huxley who theorised that people who have god experiences have more mescalin occurring naturally in their brains than the rest of the population. I think the way our brains create a world for us to live in that we think is reality gets changed during meds/trips so different bits are emphasised, we have a part of our brain that handles spacial dimension so if that gets altered it might forget where to put our boundaries and leave us thinking we are in an infinite space. If you ever had a mushroom or LSD trip you'll know that all sorts of profound revelations pop up. The trick is to not take them too seriously. If our consciousness and sense of place in the world and reactions to it are all chemicals and neuronal activity, as I would argue, then the wild feelings of joy and wisdom you get must be coming from alterations or additions to those chemicals. Some people are maybe more prone to god experiences through meditation or fasting etc. A god gene perhaps. I think it would be fascinating to get an enlightened head into an MRI scanner and see how it compares to a tripping head. I know there are differences in the subjective experience but are there enough similarities to categorise them the same way? The main similarity for us is the feeling of holiness or special knowledge you get from both states. In my first mushroom trip I saw loads of Greek gods floating about in the sky like perfect statues. I wasn't so out of it that I wondered why I saw gods. The only thing I could come up with was the Freudian notion that the unconsciousness mind has a rather fantastic opinion of itself so if you put it in charge it will give you these delusions of grandeur. I know someone who works at Imperial college in London which is one of the main teaching hospitals, and I asked him if I could stick my head inside his MRI machine when I was meditating (he writes the software for them) but he couldn't see the scientific value. Or at least not enough to cancel all the researchers who are queueing round the block to do potentially life saving work! Like Buck I say we get scientific about it, the better the machine the better the results. I'm sure we'll get a proper decent map of where consciousness occurs in the brain and how it works. But unlike Buck I think it will all be chemicals and neurons, unless Penrose is right and there is a quantum element. In a field where nothing has been definitively explained you have to keep your options open. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if God is simply what people call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain functioning in a very, very healthy way. I find it fascinating that they then speak about God or Brahman or Allah, etc. Is this not worthy of scientific exploration? I say let's hook some of these people up to an fMRI machine and see what's going on. Then let's continue the discussions on that basis. Otherwise, not even the scientists are being very scientific! As for me, I suspect that this is what's going on with such individuals. I think they have a whole lot more of their brain functioning healthily than I do. So I'm willing to pay attention to what they say. Because I'd love to get to that same point, have a brain that's optimally functioning. On Monday, February 17, 2014 1:12 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: comments below ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Exactly. Just as Brahman is not a proper name, but Brahma is (or Zeus, or Wotan, etc.). For theists, these named gods are, strictly speaking, demiurges,
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
On 2/16/2014 8:39 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: On 2/16/2014 4:45 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: The theist doesn't believe in one god among other possible gods. Polytheists believe there is more than one deity, for example the Smarta Avaita Vedanta. The Advaita Vedanta is idealistic polytheist monism - Brahman is the ultimate, both transcendent and immanent, the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or shall be. In the Smarta Advaita there are five Gods. The word Atman means the immortal perfect Spirit of any living thing - Atman and Brahman are One.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. No, you couldn't read those treatises, your intellect certainly couldn't handle them so you simply poo poo it all. Now run along and write about something really important like some movie or actor or something. Oh, you already did...I sort of skipped that post after glancing at the first couple of sentences. Same thing with theists. Yeah why not lump everyone in there together, makes the whole thing so much simpler. Simple is good, Bawwy. Got any good Saturday morning cartoons you could recommend? From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... sympathy for theology Interesting choice of words. I would say that these new atheists are scientists, so why would a scientist have sympathy for something that refuses to demonstrate any actual evidence in favour of its position? And I don't agree with the idea that Dawkins etc are smug or arrogant, they are coming from a position that is so well sussed there is simply no room for the old ways of believing to be necessary. And they are deliberately starting a fight in the hope of making people think about what they decide is real, it's a post 9/11 thing to try and shake people out of the religious stupor they walk around in without questioning it. Why would they want to do that? This the funny bit, Dawkin's thinks people will be happier with a more accurate description of reality than the superstitious ones that people still get brought up into. LOL, he obviously didn't read Xeno's security blanket list. If atheism promised a life after death he might have more takers. If you want a scientist to take a theory seriously you have to show that what it explains is a superior explanation to the current one. And here's your problem, the cornerstones of scientific thought are so sussed that trying to lever in a supernatural being or creator (or whatever this brahma does) is really going to take some doing as it's been shown to be unnecessary. We have a couple of good theories as to how the universe got here without any help. We know about stellar evolution and the creation of dense matter from supernovae. Evolution from simple forms to more complex. Not finished but there is an undeniable drift away from biblical explanations for creation. This is where the apparent smugness comes from I think. God has been forced into such a small corner by our understanding that you have to wonder if all that is left over as his domain is actually an insult to the old dude. So you have to get all god is a manifestation of all things to still keep the concept alive. A far cry from his glory days. Progress happens when someone spots that a theory is contradicted by the evidence. To get any concept of god taken seriously you'll have to show how any current explanation of our experience is inadequate without some sort of supernatural being. Good luck with it but blissful states of consciousness aren't going to do it, I had all of them and it didn't convince me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between X says... and What X says is true. This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, I agree it would be great to compare some heads in the MRI machine (-: But for an enlightened person, I'd prefer someone who many people think is a very highly developed human on an ongoing basis. Not just one experience of God or bliss or the Void or whatever. Someone like Mother Meera who writes cogently imo about both the personal and impersonal aspects of God and lives a somewhat ordinary life as a married woman in Germany. Let's compare her MRI to someone on a drug trip. And to Dawkins. And to a religious fundie. And to... Here's my point: for me, it's all about excellent functioning of BOTH sides of the brain AND a great connection between the two. I speculate that that is what gives rise to God experiences that are integrated in daily life in an optimally healthy way. Not preachers using snakes! I like the idea of a god gene and I think there have been articles about a God portion of the brain. The strongest drug I've done is marijuana but even that was pretty amazing. I decided that I wanted that experience but in a natural way. A few weeks later I began TM (-: I know that for centuries, horrors have been perpetuated in the name of God and religion. But horrors have also been perpetuated in the name of science and material progress. I think that's just what TBers, and even scientists, are always doing: keeping their options open. In that sense, even TBers are scientists and scientists are TBers. Everybody is simply observing what others do and what results they get, making conclusions and then choosing to do the same or something different. Basically everybody wants to be happy. Some people are simply better observers and concluders! On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:05 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I agree that god is what people call a brain in some sort of different, enhanced, state and that must have something to do with our own sense of feeling and powers of explanation. I think it was Aldous Huxley who theorised that people who have god experiences have more mescalin occurring naturally in their brains than the rest of the population. I think the way our brains create a world for us to live in that we think is reality gets changed during meds/trips so different bits are emphasised, we have a part of our brain that handles spacial dimension so if that gets altered it might forget where to put our boundaries and leave us thinking we are in an infinite space. If you ever had a mushroom or LSD trip you'll know that all sorts of profound revelations pop up. The trick is to not take them too seriously. If our consciousness and sense of place in the world and reactions to it are all chemicals and neuronal activity, as I would argue, then the wild feelings of joy and wisdom you get must be coming from alterations or additions to those chemicals. Some people are maybe more prone to god experiences through meditation or fasting etc. A god gene perhaps. I think it would be fascinating to get an enlightened head into an MRI scanner and see how it compares to a tripping head. I know there are differences in the subjective experience but are there enough similarities to categorise them the same way? The main similarity for us is the feeling of holiness or special knowledge you get from both states. In my first mushroom trip I saw loads of Greek gods floating about in the sky like perfect statues. I wasn't so out of it that I wondered why I saw gods. The only thing I could come up with was the Freudian notion that the unconsciousness mind has a rather fantastic opinion of itself so if you put it in charge it will give you these delusions of grandeur. I know someone who works at Imperial college in London which is one of the main teaching hospitals, and I asked him if I could stick my head inside his MRI machine when I was meditating (he writes the software for them) but he couldn't see the scientific value. Or at least not enough to cancel all the researchers who are queueing round the block to do potentially life saving work! Like Buck I say we get scientific about it, the better the machine the better the results. I'm sure we'll get a proper decent map of where consciousness occurs in the brain and how it works. But unlike Buck I think it will all be chemicals and neurons, unless Penrose is right and there is a quantum element. In a field where nothing has been definitively explained you have to keep your options open. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, I've been wondering about this: what if God is simply what people call it when, let's say, 99% of their brain is functioning in a very, very healthy way? I do think there are some people, in all spiritual and or religious systems and even outside of them, who have 99% of their brain functioning in a very, very healthy way. I find it fascinating that they then speak about God or Brahman or Allah, etc. Is this not
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you. Plus, she's an idiot. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between X says... and What X says is true. This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated with logic. So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive to be fully developed. I mean really fully and not just one time but on an ongoing basis. I think this is what drives both science and religion and every thing else too! Everybody wants to be optimally happy which means optimally developed. As I said before, some people are simply better observers and concluders with regards to what actually produces these optimal results! On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:46 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. Thou shalt have no other god but me means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a new athiest if you don't know who he is? Thou shalt have no other god but me Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Regardless of how Barry regards me, he does indeed hold the specious belief that X says... means the same as What X says is true. No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you. Plus, she's an idiot. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between X says... and What X says is true. This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: No, he does not hold that specious belief, he has already, long ago, classified you with those he calls idiots, it's completely direct without erudition. The main thing is, he just does not like you. Actually, the main thing for me is in the 'not liking' of Judy, Barry lowers himself to acting and speaking in ways that simply label him an ignorant bore. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: There is no cheese greener than Barry's. Not only is he an utter ignoramus with regard to theism, he holds the specious belief that those who present an argument for theism must be theists themselves. Yet more evidence for his inability to make a distinction between X says... and What X says is true. This is one of those hideously specious arguments that weak-minded believers trot out from time to time that I simply have no patience for. If I choose to argue with an idiot who believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I don't have to accept the possibility that it really IS made of green cheese, or read and appreciate the elaborate treatises they've written about the moon's green cheesiness. It's enough to recognize them as the idiots they are and laugh at them. Same thing with theists.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Yes, I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought processing, the other end would some sort of new age bliss freak. I'm about two thirds towards RD even with TM, but I was a bit closer before. Richard Dawkins learned TM once but he wasn't impressed, I wonder what would have happened if he'd had an experience like I did when I learned that left me wandering about with a flower clasped in my hands smiling blissfully inanely at everyone I came across? He did say that if he had any mystical experience it would obviously be neuronal so he wouldn't get all religious about it but I'm sure it would arouse his curiosity into how our brains evolved the latent ability to have such a cool and personally enriching time when merely repeating a sanskrit word. The force stronger than logic? I guess there are loads and it would depend on the person, family pressure will keep people in a particular belief system. The fact something makes sense will override an idea that is all abstract - to some people anyway. Maybe if it's felt with the heart to be true or even if you just don't like someone who is presenting the idea. We are generally illogical about a lot of things without realising it. We tend to act first and rationalise later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated with logic. So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive to be fully developed. I mean really fully and not just one time but on an ongoing basis. I think this is what drives both science and religion and every thing else too! Everybody wants to be optimally happy which means optimally developed. As I said before, some people are simply better observers and concluders with regards to what actually produces these optimal results! On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:46 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. Thou shalt have no other god but me means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a new athiest if you don't know who he is? Thou shalt have no other god but me Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Ann, certainly ONE MRI is not going to prove anything! Replication is a big part of the scientific belief system (-: So let's hook up 100 people claiming to be united with God and see if their brains all fire up in the same area. Even then, we'd need other bunch of people to say yes, I think those 100 persons are united with God. I think we live like little scientists, according to probablity though we like to think that we have 100% proof. We never do. Welcome to Planet Earth! On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:56 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: It's hardly an error to ask people to prove things if they are making such big claims - if you are in the business of providing explanations that is. If the ambition of theology really is to provide arguments for the existence of god without ever resorting to science then it's even more pointless than I thought. For a start they should lop the suffix ology off the end. It must be like painting yourself into a corner No we can't claim that, it could be tested, be more oblique Doesn't sound very satisfying to me, give me a decent particle accelerator any day I am wondering what examples of evidence you would consider proof of God. Certainly not an MRI showing how someone's brain is working. And certainly not anyone's vocalization of an experience of God. So how do you envision irrefutable evidence of God, other than some Being actually appearing before you? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: No sympathy for theology is perhaps not the best phrase here. More to the point would be lack of curiosity as to what theologians are actually saying. Classical theists do not claim there is any scientific evidence for God--could not be, by definition. The demand for such by the New Atheists is a function of the category error that pervades their arguments. stand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought processing... True, but knowledge, *is* structured in consciousness, so any deft thinker can make a case that justifies his or her limited view of the world. So what? It is like standing in front of the Sun, with eyes closed, and arrogantly proclaiming that the Universe has turned out the lights. Better to attempt to dance with the inexplicable, ime, vs. reaching a momentarily satisfying, but limited, and bitter conclusion - God never lets anyone off that easily.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
But Salyavin, I'd say Dawkins is like the rest of us, heading towards optimal development. Who knows what that is or what it would entail or appear like in general? And who knows how it would be for Dawkins? He can speculate about how he'd react to a mystical experience but until it actually happens, he doesn't really know. On Monday, February 17, 2014 11:05 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Yes, I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought processing, the other end would some sort of new age bliss freak. I'm about two thirds towards RD even with TM, but I was a bit closer before. Richard Dawkins learned TM once but he wasn't impressed, I wonder what would have happened if he'd had an experience like I did when I learned that left me wandering about with a flower clasped in my hands smiling blissfully inanely at everyone I came across? He did say that if he had any mystical experience it would obviously be neuronal so he wouldn't get all religious about it but I'm sure it would arouse his curiosity into how our brains evolved the latent ability to have such a cool and personally enriching time when merely repeating a sanskrit word. The force stronger than logic? I guess there are loads and it would depend on the person, family pressure will keep people in a particular belief system. The fact something makes sense will override an idea that is all abstract - to some people anyway. Maybe if it's felt with the heart to be true or even if you just don't like someone who is presenting the idea. We are generally illogical about a lot of things without realising it. We tend to act first and rationalise later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated with logic. So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive to be fully developed. I mean really fully and not just one time but on an ongoing basis. I think this is what drives both science and religion and every thing else too! Everybody wants to be optimally happy which means optimally developed. As I said before, some people are simply better observers and concluders with regards to what actually produces these optimal results! On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:46 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. Thou shalt have no other god but me means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a new athiest if you don't know who he is? Thou shalt have no other god but me Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
All I know about RD is that he wouldn't attach any god sounding things to it or any unified quantum field stuff. Funny if he did though and became another movement spokesman sitting next to Hagelin, Lynch and Brand. That'd be a coup for them. Least likely option though ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: But Salyavin, I'd say Dawkins is like the rest of us, heading towards optimal development. Who knows what that is or what it would entail or appear like in general? And who knows how it would be for Dawkins? He can speculate about how he'd react to a mystical experience but until it actually happens, he doesn't really know. On Monday, February 17, 2014 11:05 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Yes, I would say Dawkins is right at one end of the continuum of human thought processing, the other end would some sort of new age bliss freak. I'm about two thirds towards RD even with TM, but I was a bit closer before. Richard Dawkins learned TM once but he wasn't impressed, I wonder what would have happened if he'd had an experience like I did when I learned that left me wandering about with a flower clasped in my hands smiling blissfully inanely at everyone I came across? He did say that if he had any mystical experience it would obviously be neuronal so he wouldn't get all religious about it but I'm sure it would arouse his curiosity into how our brains evolved the latent ability to have such a cool and personally enriching time when merely repeating a sanskrit word. The force stronger than logic? I guess there are loads and it would depend on the person, family pressure will keep people in a particular belief system. The fact something makes sense will override an idea that is all abstract - to some people anyway. Maybe if it's felt with the heart to be true or even if you just don't like someone who is presenting the idea. We are generally illogical about a lot of things without realising it. We tend to act first and rationalise later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Salyavin, continuing in my same vein, I would say that if we hooked Dawkins up to an MRI machine, we'd see a very well developed part of the brain associated with logic. So, what is the force stronger than logic? Again, I think it's the human drive to be fully developed. I mean really fully and not just one time but on an ongoing basis. I think this is what drives both science and religion and every thing else too! Everybody wants to be optimally happy which means optimally developed. As I said before, some people are simply better observers and concluders with regards to what actually produces these optimal results! On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:46 AM, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Behind with classical theism? Boy, that's a weird concept. I would say that all one needs to know about it is that it concerns a speculative set of theories about man and the universes origin. You don't have to get into the actual nitty gritty to know what they amount to - a way of looking at the world unencumbered by the need to provide evidence. To say they have been superceded by superior explanatory ideas is an understatement. You won't convince anyone who doesn't already want to believe it these days. Yet still they persist. Which is maybe just as well, it would be a boring sort of world if Richard Dawkins had his way but there are stronger human forces than logic. Unless someone would care to enlighten me about something I missed? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You don't understand my definition, sorry. I keep being misled by how smart you are about other things, but you are so far behind and so resistant to learning anything about classical theism that I really don't know where to start explaining things to you. One assumes Roberts is a New Atheist because they use his argument all the time, mistakenly thinking it's a real killer. Thou shalt have no other god but me means, essentially, Thou shalt not believe in demiurges. Judy is not correct because most religious types would not agree that her definition of their beliefs is accurate. How would you know Roberts is a new athiest if you don't know who he is? Thou shalt have no other god but me Sound familiar? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: Judy is correct. What Stephen Roberts (who he?) doesn't get is that God is not a proper name. The trouble with these new atheist types is that they have no sympathy for theology so completely misunderstand the language that theologians use.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being having, simplicity is all knowing is all powerful is all good is ultimate reality is transcendent is incorporeal is timeless is infinite is all intelligent This all sounds very grand, but it does not explain how simplicity can create complexity, does not explain why something that is separate from non-ultimate reality (the non-transcendent world) can interact with the non-transcendent world, and does not explain how that which is all knowing cannot explain why it cannot explain this. It does not explain how an all powerful being can produce a world with such weakness and defects and shoddy workmanship. It does not explain how evil can arise from something that is all good, or how deception and illusion can arise out of all goodness and what is ultimately real. It does not explain how incorporeality can make itself even known in the world, because in the world, all that can be imagined, invisible dragons, invisible cockroaches, other invisible gods etc., all appear the same (as in the cartoon Barry posted). It does not explain how the time bound human mind can conceive of timelessness, or infinity, or with our limited intelligence (having been somehow generated by something all intelligent) can even imagine something more intelligent than we are. simplicity / complexity knowing / ignorance powerful / weak good / evil reality / illusion transcendent / factual incorporeal / embodied timeless / time bound infinite / finite These opposites logically contradict one another and yet are somehow supposed to fit together, our world and the 'world' denoted by the token 'god', but a contradiction simply means that an argument is false. In other words classical theism is attempting to ignore half of reality by shunting it away under the rug and tacking the rest on a concept called 'god' which is walled off from the corruption of those superlatives. On the face of it, those superlatives look impressive. If you are a priest, a purveyor of a faith, it is really a great thing to be able to ride on the coattails of such a conception, because it makes you look good, because you have the appearance of being associated with something above and beyond the miserable herd you can look down upon. That is appearance only. Absolute being has nothing to do with metaphysics. Belief in something does not materialise that something, it is simply an idea that one thinks is true in the absence of whatever it is that one thinks is true. Metaphysics is an imaginary playground of the mind, an illusion, a make believe story, that exists as thought only. Absolute being has to do with concrete reality and experience, it is the very world you see and hear and feel, even the cockeyed thoughts in your head that try to explain the world. The arguments for and against the theistic view of reality can simply be flipped and be the argument for and against the atheistic view of reality. As long as you remain in this mode of argument it is lose, lose, because no headway can be made either way. Spirituality is not about trumping the atheistic argument or exalting the theistic one, it is about getting out the argument altogether and leaving it in the trash bin where it belongs. A lot of human intelligence has gone into these arguments but in the end, it is a matter of belief, of ignorance, and to accept such arguments requires one to blunt one's intelligence in some way, so you stop being curious, inquisitive, investigative, and stop at a concept called 'god' which does not explain what you do not know, but simply stops your intelligence in its tracks. These arguments have gone on for thousands of years and no resolution is in sight. If there is a solution, it cannot be found by staying in this evidence-free rut. Now, I am going to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing, and then go to a library, and then dinner, and then a reading of a new play. Good night all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
TTFN, and thanks for another super post. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being having, simplicity is all knowing is all powerful is all good is ultimate reality is transcendent is incorporeal is timeless is infinite is all intelligent This all sounds very grand, but it does not explain how simplicity can create complexity, does not explain why something that is separate from non-ultimate reality (the non-transcendent world) can interact with the non-transcendent world, and does not explain how that which is all knowing cannot explain why it cannot explain this. It does not explain how an all powerful being can produce a world with such weakness and defects and shoddy workmanship. It does not explain how evil can arise from something that is all good, or how deception and illusion can arise out of all goodness and what is ultimately real. It does not explain how incorporeality can make itself even known in the world, because in the world, all that can be imagined, invisible dragons, invisible cockroaches, other invisible gods etc., all appear the same (as in the cartoon Barry posted). It does not explain how the time bound human mind can conceive of timelessness, or infinity, or with our limited intelligence (having been somehow generated by something all intelligent) can even imagine something more intelligent than we are. simplicity / complexity knowing / ignorance powerful / weak good / evil reality / illusion transcendent / factual incorporeal / embodied timeless / time bound infinite / finite These opposites logically contradict one another and yet are somehow supposed to fit together, our world and the 'world' denoted by the token 'god', but a contradiction simply means that an argument is false. In other words classical theism is attempting to ignore half of reality by shunting it away under the rug and tacking the rest on a concept called 'god' which is walled off from the corruption of those superlatives. On the face of it, those superlatives look impressive. If you are a priest, a purveyor of a faith, it is really a great thing to be able to ride on the coattails of such a conception, because it makes you look good, because you have the appearance of being associated with something above and beyond the miserable herd you can look down upon. That is appearance only. Absolute being has nothing to do with metaphysics. Belief in something does not materialise that something, it is simply an idea that one thinks is true in the absence of whatever it is that one thinks is true. Metaphysics is an imaginary playground of the mind, an illusion, a make believe story, that exists as thought only. Absolute being has to do with concrete reality and experience, it is the very world you see and hear and feel, even the cockeyed thoughts in your head that try to explain the world. The arguments for and against the theistic view of reality can simply be flipped and be the argument for and against the atheistic view of reality. As long as you remain in this mode of argument it is lose, lose, because no headway can be made either way. Spirituality is not about trumping the atheistic argument or exalting the theistic one, it is about getting out the argument altogether and leaving it in the trash bin where it belongs. A lot of human intelligence has gone into these arguments but in the end, it is a matter of belief, of ignorance, and to accept such arguments requires one to blunt one's intelligence in some way, so you stop being curious, inquisitive, investigative, and stop at a concept called 'god' which does not explain what you do not know, but simply stops your intelligence in its tracks. These arguments have gone on for thousands of years and no resolution is in sight. If there is a solution, it cannot be found by staying in this evidence-free rut. Now, I am going to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing, and then go to a library, and then dinner, and then a reading of a new play. Good night all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
TTFN and thanks for another super post. I'm sure the argument will range here for another thousand years. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being having, simplicity is all knowing is all powerful is all good is ultimate reality is transcendent is incorporeal is timeless is infinite is all intelligent This all sounds very grand, but it does not explain how simplicity can create complexity, does not explain why something that is separate from non-ultimate reality (the non-transcendent world) can interact with the non-transcendent world, and does not explain how that which is all knowing cannot explain why it cannot explain this. It does not explain how an all powerful being can produce a world with such weakness and defects and shoddy workmanship. It does not explain how evil can arise from something that is all good, or how deception and illusion can arise out of all goodness and what is ultimately real. It does not explain how incorporeality can make itself even known in the world, because in the world, all that can be imagined, invisible dragons, invisible cockroaches, other invisible gods etc., all appear the same (as in the cartoon Barry posted). It does not explain how the time bound human mind can conceive of timelessness, or infinity, or with our limited intelligence (having been somehow generated by something all intelligent) can even imagine something more intelligent than we are. simplicity / complexity knowing / ignorance powerful / weak good / evil reality / illusion transcendent / factual incorporeal / embodied timeless / time bound infinite / finite These opposites logically contradict one another and yet are somehow supposed to fit together, our world and the 'world' denoted by the token 'god', but a contradiction simply means that an argument is false. In other words classical theism is attempting to ignore half of reality by shunting it away under the rug and tacking the rest on a concept called 'god' which is walled off from the corruption of those superlatives. On the face of it, those superlatives look impressive. If you are a priest, a purveyor of a faith, it is really a great thing to be able to ride on the coattails of such a conception, because it makes you look good, because you have the appearance of being associated with something above and beyond the miserable herd you can look down upon. That is appearance only. Absolute being has nothing to do with metaphysics. Belief in something does not materialise that something, it is simply an idea that one thinks is true in the absence of whatever it is that one thinks is true. Metaphysics is an imaginary playground of the mind, an illusion, a make believe story, that exists as thought only. Absolute being has to do with concrete reality and experience, it is the very world you see and hear and feel, even the cockeyed thoughts in your head that try to explain the world. The arguments for and against the theistic view of reality can simply be flipped and be the argument for and against the atheistic view of reality. As long as you remain in this mode of argument it is lose, lose, because no headway can be made either way. Spirituality is not about trumping the atheistic argument or exalting the theistic one, it is about getting out the argument altogether and leaving it in the trash bin where it belongs. A lot of human intelligence has gone into these arguments but in the end, it is a matter of belief, of ignorance, and to accept such arguments requires one to blunt one's intelligence in some way, so you stop being curious, inquisitive, investigative, and stop at a concept called 'god' which does not explain what you do not know, but simply stops your intelligence in its tracks. These arguments have gone on for thousands of years and no resolution is in sight. If there is a solution, it cannot be found by staying in this evidence-free rut. Now, I am going to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing, and then go to a library, and then dinner, and then a reading of a new play. Good night all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
Agreed. Excellent post. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day... TTFN and thanks for another super post. I'm sure the argument will range here for another thousand years. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being having, simplicity is all knowing is all powerful is all good is ultimate reality is transcendent is incorporeal is timeless is infinite is all intelligent This all sounds very grand, but it does not explain how simplicity can create complexity, does not explain why something that is separate from non-ultimate reality (the non-transcendent world) can interact with the non-transcendent world, and does not explain how that which is all knowing cannot explain why it cannot explain this. It does not explain how an all powerful being can produce a world with such weakness and defects and shoddy workmanship. It does not explain how evil can arise from something that is all good, or how deception and illusion can arise out of all goodness and what is ultimately real. It does not explain how incorporeality can make itself even known in the world, because in the world, all that can be imagined, invisible dragons, invisible cockroaches, other invisible gods etc., all appear the same (as in the cartoon Barry posted). It does not explain how the time bound human mind can conceive of timelessness, or infinity, or with our limited intelligence (having been somehow generated by something all intelligent) can even imagine something more intelligent than we are. simplicity / complexity knowing / ignorance powerful / weak good / evil reality / illusion transcendent / factual incorporeal / embodied timeless / time bound infinite / finite These opposites logically contradict one another and yet are somehow supposed to fit together, our world and the 'world' denoted by the token 'god', but a contradiction simply means that an argument is false. In other words classical theism is attempting to ignore half of reality by shunting it away under the rug and tacking the rest on a concept called 'god' which is walled off from the corruption of those superlatives. On the face of it, those superlatives look impressive. If you are a priest, a purveyor of a faith, it is really a great thing to be able to ride on the coattails of such a conception, because it makes you look good, because you have the appearance of being associated with something above and beyond the miserable herd you can look down upon. That is appearance only. Absolute being has nothing to do with metaphysics. Belief in something does not materialise that something, it is simply an idea that one thinks is true in the absence of whatever it is that one thinks is true. Metaphysics is an imaginary playground of the mind, an illusion, a make believe story, that exists as thought only. Absolute being has to do with concrete reality and experience, it is the very world you see and hear and feel, even the cockeyed thoughts in your head that try to explain the world. The arguments for and against the theistic view of reality can simply be flipped and be the argument for and against the atheistic view of reality. As long as you remain in this mode of argument it is lose, lose, because no headway can be made either way. Spirituality is not about trumping the atheistic argument or exalting the theistic one, it is about getting out the argument altogether and leaving it in the trash bin where it belongs. A lot of human intelligence has gone into these arguments but in the end, it is a matter of belief, of ignorance, and to accept such arguments requires one to blunt one's intelligence in some way, so you stop being curious, inquisitive, investigative, and stop at a concept called 'god' which does not explain what you do not know, but simply stops your intelligence in its tracks. These arguments have gone on for thousands of years and no resolution is in sight. If there is a solution, it cannot be found by staying in this evidence-free rut. Now, I am going to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing, and then go to a library, and then dinner, and then a reading of a new play. Good night all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
An/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being is not how classical theism characterizes God. If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being having, simplicity is all knowing is all powerful is all good is ultimate reality is transcendent is incorporeal is timeless is infinite is all intelligent This all sounds very grand, but it does not explain how simplicity can create complexity, does not explain why something that is separate from non-ultimate reality (the non-transcendent world) can interact with the non-transcendent world, and does not explain how that which is all knowing cannot explain why it cannot explain this. It does not explain how an all powerful being can produce a world with such weakness and defects and shoddy workmanship. It does not explain how evil can arise from something that is all good, or how deception and illusion can arise out of all goodness and what is ultimately real. It does not explain how incorporeality can make itself even known in the world, because in the world, all that can be imagined, invisible dragons, invisible cockroaches, other invisible gods etc., all appear the same (as in the cartoon Barry posted). It does not explain how the time bound human mind can conceive of timelessness, or infinity, or with our limited intelligence (having been somehow generated by something all intelligent) can even imagine something more intelligent than we are. simplicity / complexity knowing / ignorance powerful / weak good / evil reality / illusion transcendent / factual incorporeal / embodied timeless / time bound infinite / finite These opposites logically contradict one another and yet are somehow supposed to fit together, our world and the 'world' denoted by the token 'god', but a contradiction simply means that an argument is false. In other words classical theism is attempting to ignore half of reality by shunting it away under the rug and tacking the rest on a concept called 'god' which is walled off from the corruption of those superlatives. On the face of it, those superlatives look impressive. If you are a priest, a purveyor of a faith, it is really a great thing to be able to ride on the coattails of such a conception, because it makes you look good, because you have the appearance of being associated with something above and beyond the miserable herd you can look down upon. That is appearance only. Absolute being has nothing to do with metaphysics. Belief in something does not materialise that something, it is simply an idea that one thinks is true in the absence of whatever it is that one thinks is true. Metaphysics is an imaginary playground of the mind, an illusion, a make believe story, that exists as thought only. Absolute being has to do with concrete reality and experience, it is the very world you see and hear and feel, even the cockeyed thoughts in your head that try to explain the world. The arguments for and against the theistic view of reality can simply be flipped and be the argument for and against the atheistic view of reality. As long as you remain in this mode of argument it is lose, lose, because no headway can be made either way. Spirituality is not about trumping the atheistic argument or exalting the theistic one, it is about getting out the argument altogether and leaving it in the trash bin where it belongs. A lot of human intelligence has gone into these arguments but in the end, it is a matter of belief, of ignorance, and to accept such arguments requires one to blunt one's intelligence in some way, so you stop being curious, inquisitive, investigative, and stop at a concept called 'god' which does not explain what you do not know, but simply stops your intelligence in its tracks. These arguments have gone on for thousands of years and no resolution is in sight. If there is a solution, it cannot be found by staying in this evidence-free rut. Now, I am going to sit quietly for a while, doing nothing, and then go to a library, and then dinner, and then a reading of a new play. Good night all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
As I gathered my information from web pages entitled 'Classical Theism' the version or variation you imply here needs to be stated explicitly to show how what I wrote is not classical theism. You need to produce what you think classical theism is, if you want to correct what I said, otherwise you are saying nothing whatever to contradict what I said. So I say, your interpretation of classical theism is wrong. Provide the counter arguments. (you can reply to Seraphita if you like, to avoid certain repercussions). This might have to do with the use of English articles 'a', 'an', 'the'. In the Greek Christian Bible, for example god is usually written TON THEOS (THE GOD - first century Greek only had capital letters). If there is such a thing as absolute being, how many of it is or are there? If it is a unity, then one could say it's either absolute being, or the absolute being, since it is unique; if it were not unique, then it certainly would not be associated with the word god as you seem to imply but do not as yet say. I would venture to say that because nobody seems to ever exactly agree on just what god is, that 'classical theism' is really just a general category for similar but not identical views and that the term classical theism really does not apply to a specifically definable idea. But you seem to have something specific in mind. Produce it or you lose the argument. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: An/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being is not how classical theism characterizes God. If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being having, simplicity is all knowing is all powerful is all good is ultimate reality is transcendent is incorporeal is timeless is infinite is all intelligent This all sounds very grand, but it does not explain how simplicity can create complexity, does not explain why something that is separate from non-ultimate reality (the non-transcendent world) can interact with the non-transcendent world, and does not explain how that which is all knowing cannot explain why it cannot explain this. It does not explain how an all powerful being can produce a world with such weakness and defects and shoddy workmanship. It does not explain how evil can arise from something that is all good, or how deception and illusion can arise out of all goodness and what is ultimately real. It does not explain how incorporeality can make itself even known in the world, because in the world, all that can be imagined, invisible dragons, invisible cockroaches, other invisible gods etc., all appear the same (as in the cartoon Barry posted). It does not explain how the time bound human mind can conceive of timelessness, or infinity, or with our limited intelligence (having been somehow generated by something all intelligent) can even imagine something more intelligent than we are. simplicity / complexity knowing / ignorance powerful / weak good / evil reality / illusion transcendent / factual incorporeal / embodied timeless / time bound infinite / finite These opposites logically contradict one another and yet are somehow supposed to fit together, our world and the 'world' denoted by the token 'god', but a contradiction simply means that an argument is false. In other words classical theism is attempting to ignore half of reality by shunting it away under the rug and tacking the rest on a concept called 'god' which is walled off from the corruption of those superlatives. On the face of it, those superlatives look impressive. If you are a priest, a purveyor of a faith, it is really a great thing to be able to ride on the coattails of such a conception, because it makes you look good, because you have the appearance of being associated with something above and beyond the miserable herd you can look down upon. That is appearance only. Absolute being has nothing to do with metaphysics. Belief in something does not materialise that something, it is simply an idea that one thinks is true in the absence of whatever it is that one thinks is true. Metaphysics is an imaginary playground of the mind, an illusion, a make believe story, that exists as thought only. Absolute being has to do with concrete reality and experience, it is the very world you see and hear and feel, even the cockeyed thoughts in your head that try to explain the world. The arguments for and against the theistic view of reality can simply be flipped and be the argument for and against the atheistic view of reality. As long as you remain in this mode of argument it is lose, lose, because no headway can be made either way. Spirituality is not about trumping the atheistic argument or exalting the theistic one, it is about getting out the argument altogether and leaving it in the trash bin where it belongs. A lot of human intelligence has gone into these arguments
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
As I gathered my information from web pages entitled 'Classical Theism' the version or variation you imply here needs to be stated explicitly to show how what I wrote is not classical theism. You need to produce what you think classical theism is, if you want to correct what I said, otherwise you are saying nothing whatever to contradict what I said. So I say, your interpretation of classical theism is wrong. Provide the counter arguments. (you can reply to Salyavin if you like, to avoid certain repercussions). This might have to do with the use of English articles 'a', 'an', 'the'. In the Greek Christian Bible, for example god is usually written TON THEOS (THE GOD - first century Greek only had capital letters). If there is such a thing as absolute being, how many of it is or are there? If it is a unity, then one could say it's either absolute being, or the absolute being, since it is unique; if it were not unique, then it certainly would not be associated with the word god as you seem to imply but do not as yet say. I would venture to say that because nobody seems to ever exactly agree on just what god is, that 'classical theism' is really just a general category for similar but not identical views and that the term classical theism really does not apply to a specifically definable idea. But you seem to have something specific in mind. Produce it or you lose the argument. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: An/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being is not how classical theism characterizes God. If classical theism refers to god characterized as an/the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being having, simplicity is all knowing is all powerful is all good is ultimate reality is transcendent is incorporeal is timeless is infinite is all intelligent This all sounds very grand, but it does not explain how simplicity can create complexity, does not explain why something that is separate from non-ultimate reality (the non-transcendent world) can interact with the non-transcendent world, and does not explain how that which is all knowing cannot explain why it cannot explain this. It does not explain how an all powerful being can produce a world with such weakness and defects and shoddy workmanship. It does not explain how evil can arise from something that is all good, or how deception and illusion can arise out of all goodness and what is ultimately real. It does not explain how incorporeality can make itself even known in the world, because in the world, all that can be imagined, invisible dragons, invisible cockroaches, other invisible gods etc., all appear the same (as in the cartoon Barry posted). It does not explain how the time bound human mind can conceive of timelessness, or infinity, or with our limited intelligence (having been somehow generated by something all intelligent) can even imagine something more intelligent than we are. simplicity / complexity knowing / ignorance powerful / weak good / evil reality / illusion transcendent / factual incorporeal / embodied timeless / time bound infinite / finite These opposites logically contradict one another and yet are somehow supposed to fit together, our world and the 'world' denoted by the token 'god', but a contradiction simply means that an argument is false. In other words classical theism is attempting to ignore half of reality by shunting it away under the rug and tacking the rest on a concept called 'god' which is walled off from the corruption of those superlatives. On the face of it, those superlatives look impressive. If you are a priest, a purveyor of a faith, it is really a great thing to be able to ride on the coattails of such a conception, because it makes you look good, because you have the appearance of being associated with something above and beyond the miserable herd you can look down upon. That is appearance only. Absolute being has nothing to do with metaphysics. Belief in something does not materialise that something, it is simply an idea that one thinks is true in the absence of whatever it is that one thinks is true. Metaphysics is an imaginary playground of the mind, an illusion, a make believe story, that exists as thought only. Absolute being has to do with concrete reality and experience, it is the very world you see and hear and feel, even the cockeyed thoughts in your head that try to explain the world. The arguments for and against the theistic view of reality can simply be flipped and be the argument for and against the atheistic view of reality. As long as you remain in this mode of argument it is lose, lose, because no headway can be made either way. Spirituality is not about trumping the atheistic argument or exalting the theistic one, it is about getting out the argument altogether and leaving it in the trash bin where it belongs. A lot of human intelligence has gone into these arguments
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
On 2/16/2014 4:45 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: The theist doesn't believe in one god among other possible gods. Polytheists believe there is more than one deity, for example the Smarta Avaita Vedanta.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Quote of the day...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/16/2014 4:45 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Polytheists believe there is more than one deity, for example the Smarta Avaita Vedanta. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3956.Christopher_Hitchens
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day - on Conservatism
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ravi Yogi Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:09 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day - on Conservatism --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardjwilliamstexas willytex@... wrote: do.rflex: Quote of the Day - on Conservatism... Conservatives are happier than liberals because conservatives have a greater acceptance of income inequalities. But that's because liberals are sensitive, feeling people, my only problem is that most project their pain outwards and gravitate to pseudo-spiritual icons like Gandhi MLK. Everyone has a role to play. A lot of Indians and Blacks would be a lot worse off without Gandhi and MLK.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the day! Only people with nice neat Christian names need apply...
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of TurquoiseB Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:37 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the day! Only people with nice neat Christian names need apply... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for bring wit and sanity to FF Life dear authfriend. I agree that the smarty pants of the liberal left never get it about the lunch bucket Dems they insult as racist, low information voters who don't know what's good for them. Obama exudes the same dismissive elitism as Kerry, Dean, and Pelosi that I find s unattractive. Check out my favorite political blogger: http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/ As for our Obot friends still drinking the kool aid and pining over the plumiting polls, cheers. Talk about not getting it. Anyone who dismisses liberals as elitist in a post that calls them smarty pants and Obots is too clueless to bother with. Not to mention not being able to spell. Another poster I can safely add to the Click Next the instant I see their name in the From line category. I don't know Turq. I'm sort of hoping you'll read and respond to some of this blather.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the day! Only people with nice neat Christian names need apply...
authfriend wrote: But of course I never suggested the article I posted was representative of the typical left-wing voter. Obviously it isn't, as you'd have known if you had read it. It's *chiding* left-wing voters. I posted it in response to Chopra's article, which is characterized by the very derision for the working class that Crook was objecting to. Crook was pointing out that the reason these people don't seem to vote in their own self-interest, which should be with the Democrats, is because the party elite--the creative class that supports Obama--is constantly spitting on them, just as Chopra, a member of the creative class, spat on Palin, just as you and Bhairitu and Barry and far too many others here spit on Palin and the working class. Maybe that's because the working class (not all of them) have been purposely dumbed down to the extent that they feel it is cool to be stupid. You don't know how many times I've seen some of these people do consciously stupid things and use as an excuse that they're stupid rather than wising up. Being stupid has been made popular particularly by the MSM and their TV shows. Some of us may watch the same shows and laugh at them as ridicule of stupid people while the dumbed down believe the same show is championing their behavior. I don't believe the Democrats should dumb down their campaign but maybe they shouldn't make a doctorate degree necessary to understand what they're saying. But I have not heard any of the latter from them. I have compassion for the mentally retarded but not much patience for those who practice lazy mindedness. Do you?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the day! Only people with nice neat Christian names need apply...
On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:15 PM, authfriend wrote: And of course this woman represents the views of the vast majority of U.S. voters. She does about as much as the article you posted represents the typical left-wing voter. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the day! Only people with nice neat Christian names need apply...
On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:59 PM, authfriend wrote: Sal, every time I think we've plumbed the depths of your nitwittery, you surprise me. Apparently it has no lower limit. And every time I think we've plumbed the depths of your nastiness, Judy, you prove me wrong. Thanks for always being so predictable. (BTW, I have no hesitation whatsoever in restoring what you snip in an attempt to obscure your own dishonesty and stupidity. So you might as well just leave it in. You'll look less dishonest that way.) I snipped it, genius, because I generally include only that to which I was responding, which *you* should know from having read my posts. I always try to include only that which is relevant to *that post.* If I was trying to obscure anything, Ms. Ignoramus, I would have deleted my previous post. Really, Judy, this is a new low in idiocy...even for you. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
On Oct 9, 2006, at 10:49 PM, authfriend wrote: The Republicans' behavior has been utterly reprehensible, not only in covering up the Foley problem to begin with, but in trying to cover up the coverup after the story broke by trying to blame the Democrats. You know, it seems that, at least since the story broke, about the only Republican acting with even a shred of decency has been Foley. As for the rest of them--have they no shame? I guess not. Sal To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
On Oct 10, 2006, at 9:28 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 9, 2006, at 10:49 PM, authfriend wrote: The Republicans' behavior has been utterly reprehensible, not only in covering up the Foley problem to begin with, but in trying to cover up the coverup after the story broke by trying to blame the Democrats. You know, it seems that, at least since the story broke, about the only Republican acting with even a shred of decency has been Foley. As for the rest of them--have they no shame? I guess not. Nope, no shame, only fear that they're going to lose power. It's hard to know where Foley's at. One hopes he's had a genuine Moment of Truth, but considering the depths he'd been happily plumbing for many years, that kind of instant turnaround seems unlikely on its face. The whole rehab bit has become such a cliche for scandal-plagued public figures that it doesn't have a lot of credibility. It may be nothing more than getting himself out of the public eye until at least after the elections, as well as a way to scrape up whatever potential sympathy may be out there. And it would have been Really, Really Stupid for him to have tried to hang onto his job in the face of all the revelations (and more he must have known would be coming out). He didn't have a whole lot of choice about resigning. I agree, I wasn't thinking so much about resigning as about what he hasn't been doing: blaming others, calling the pages ugly names, etc. Of course, if it weren't for society's--and especially the right's--twisted view of homosexuality, quite possibly he wouldn't have felt the need to sneak around to do his thing, whatever it was. Whatever it was = it's not entirely clear to me that he's fixated on much younger men, as opposed to the availability of pages being a relatively safe opportunity to cat around that he couldn't indulge in public (excuse the tortured syntax there!). All very complicated. Apparently he has a life partner back in Florida. They've reportedly been together for nearly 20 years. That guy must be going through a lot as well. I imagine so. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Quote of the Day
In a message dated 10/10/06 7:28:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just for your info: Melhman I've heard is a Satanist. All I've heard is that he's another closet case.Closet gay satanic child molesting christian whale, er, congresscritter?Where's North Korea's nukes when you need them? Does he drink the blood of dead babies? __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___
